Single rod instrumentation in patients with scoliosis and co-morbidities: Indications and outcomes

Table 5 Cost analysis and comparison between the single and double rod constructs in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis based on the Universal Spinal System instrumentation

No. of levels included	Type of construct	Instrumentation	Comparative cost
10 (thoracic fusion)	Double rod construct with bilateral segmental pedicle screws (implant density: 2)	20 pedicle screws 20 sleeves and nuts 2 rods	100%
	Double rod construct using the authors’ preferred technique (implant density: 1.38)[10]	14 pedicle screws 14 sleeves and nuts 2 rods	29% reduction compared to bilateral segmental pedicle screw construct
	Single rod hybrid construct	3 pedicle screws 3 pedicle screw hooks 1 transverse process hook 7 sleeves and nuts 1 rod	65% reduction compared to bilateral segmental pedicle screw construct; 51% reduction compared to authors’ preferred technique
15 (Thoracic and Lumbar fusion)	Double rod construct with bilateral segmental pedicle screws (implant density: 2)	30 pedicle screws 30 sleeves and nuts 2 rods	100%
	Double rod construct using authors preferred technique (implant density: 1.38)[10]	21 pedicle screws 21 sleeves and nuts 2 rods	29% reduction compared with bilateral segmental pedicle screw construct
	Single rod construct	6 pedicle screws 5 pedicle screw hooks 1 transverse process hook 12 sleeves and nuts 1 rod	64% reduction compared to bilateral segmental pedicle screw construct; 49% reduction compared to authors’ preferred technique